2019 REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

COMPLIANCE REVIEW AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES

Prepared by

State Personnel Board
801 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814

Lauri Shanahan, President Shawnda Westly, Vice President Mona Pasquil Rogers, Member Kathy Baldree, Member
Kimiko Burton, Member

Suzanne M. Ambrose, Executive Officer October 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND	1
INDEX OF REVIEWED AREAS	3
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE REVIEW AREAS	5
VERY SERIOUS ISSUES	11
SERIOUS ISSUES	27
NON-SERIOUS OR TECHNICAL ISSUES	33
SUMMARY OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS	37
COMPLIANCE REVIEW UNIT COSTS	38
INDEX OF FINDINGS FOR COMPLIANCE REVIEWS	39
INDEX OF COMPLETED REVIEWS AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS COSTS	60

BACKGROUND

Effective July 1, 2012, the Governor’s Reorganization Plan #1 (GRP1) of 2011 consolidated all of the functions of the Department of Personnel Administration and the merit-related transactional functions of the State Personnel Board (SPB) into the Department of Human Resources (CalHR). Specifically, SPB programs related to appointments consultation, career executive assignment allocations, test development, recruitment, examinations, psychological and medical screening, training, and the Office of Civil Rights transferred to the CalHR along with the associated staff and funding. In addition, all of the SPB’s accounting, budget, business services, human resources, information technology, legislative affairs, and public information office resources were transferred to the CalHR. The CalHR staff is now charged with providing these services to the SPB.

The GRP1 recognized and preserved the SPB’s exclusive constitutional authority to administer the merit system. As a result, in addition to retaining the Appeals Division, the GRP1 created both a Policy Unit and Compliance Review Unit (CRU) at the SPB to establish merit-related policy and conduct reviews of departmental merit-related practices to ensure compliance with laws, rules, and Board policy. The CRU performs cyclical standard reviews of five major areas: examinations, appointments, equal employment opportunity (EEO), personal services contracts, and mandated trainings. The CRU also conducts special investigations of certain departments’ personnel practices as determined by the Board. Special investigations may be initiated in response to a specific request or when the SPB obtains information suggesting a potential merit-related violation.

Pursuant to Government Code section 18502, subdivision (c), CalHR and SPB may “delegate, share, or transfer between them responsibilities for programs within their respective jurisdictions pursuant to an agreement.” CalHR and SPB, by mutual agreement, expanded the scope of program areas to be audited to include more operational practices that have been delegated to departments and for which CalHR provides policy direction. Many of these delegated practices are cost drivers to the state and not monitored on a consistent, statewide basis.

As such, SPB also conducts compliance reviews of appointing authorities’ personnel practices to ensure that state departments are appropriately managing the following
non-merit-related personnel functions: compensation and pay, leave, and policy and processes. These reviews will help to avoid and prevent potential costly litigation related to improper personnel practices and deter waste, fraud, and abuse.

Government Code section 18662, subdivision (e), provides, “on or before October 1, 2014, and every October 1 thereafter, the board shall report to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee the audit and special investigation activities of the

Board pursuant to this article from the preceding fiscal year. The Board shall include in the report the following information:

A summary of each audit and special investigation, including findings.

The number and total cost of audits and special investigations, by department.”

This report, which is due October 1, 2019, describes the compliance review and special investigation activities of the CRU from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019. The report summarizes the compliance review and special investigation findings by state department and includes the numbers and total cost of compliance reviews and special investigations by state department in compliance with the statute cited above.

INDEX OF REVIEWED AREAS

#	Department	Exam	Appt	EEO	PSC	Trn	Comp & Pay	Leave	Policy	
1	California Arts Council	X								
2	California Coastal Commission				X					
3	California Conservation Corps				X					
4	California Department of Aging									
5	California Department of Child Support Services									

6	California Department of Community Services and Development	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
7	California Department of Pesticide Regulation									
8	California Department of Toxic Substances Control									
9	California Energy Commission									
10	California Gambling Control Commission	X			X					

11	California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
12	California Health Facilities Financing Authority									
13	California Military Department	X								
14	California Public Employees’ Retirement System									
15	California State Controller’s Office									
16	California State Lottery Commission	X								
17	California State Teachers’ Retirement System									
18	California State Transportation Agency									
19	California Tax Credit Allocation Committee									

#	Department	Exam	Appt	EEO	PSC	Trn	Comp & Pay	Leave	Policy	
20	California Workforce Development Board	X								
21	Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training									
22	Commission on State Mandates	X								
23	Department of Business Oversight									
24	Department of Conservation									
25	Department of Health Care Services									
26	Government Operations Agency									
27	Office of Environment Health Hazard Assessment									
28	Office of Inspector General									
29	Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development									

Key:

Exam = examinations, Appt = appointments, EEO = equal employment opportunity, PSC
= personal services contracts, Trn = mandated training, Comp & Pay = compensation and pay, Leave = leave, and Policy = policy and processes.

Signifies that a review of the area was conducted.
X	Signifies that a review of the area was not conducted.

SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE REVIEW AREAS

From July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019, the CRU completed compliance reviews of 29 state departments and two special investigations. Deficiencies were found in all areas of review: examinations, appointments, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Personal Services Contracts (PSC’s), mandated training, compensation and pay, and policy. The areas of leave, appointments, and policy have the largest numbers of violations. The area of appointments has historically been one of the largest categories of violations. It should be noted that leave and policy reviews are a fairly new component to regular compliance reviews, and they have now surpassed training and EEO in the number of violations.

The following chart displays the departmental violations found within each major area.

Violation Percentage Break Down
1%

16%

16%

6.5%

23%

10%

13.5%

14%

Examinations

Apppointments

Mandated
Trainings

Compensation
and Pay

Equal Employment
Opportunity
Leave

Personal Services
Contracts
Policy

The most common violations and corrective actions from the compliance reviews were: Very Serious Issues
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
13 out of 29 departments or 45%
Corrective Action: Departments were required to submit a corrective action plans which ensure compliance with Government Code section 11146.3, subdivision (b).

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
11 out of 29 departments or 38%
Corrective Action: Departments were required to submit corrective action plans which ensure compliance with Government Code section 12950.1, subdivision (a).

Incorrect Application of Alternate Range Criteria
9 out of 29 departments or 31%
Corrective Action: Departments were required to submit corrective action plans which ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.666.

Serious Issues
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees
22 out of 29 departments or 76%
Corrective Action: Departments were required to submit corrective action plans which ensure compliance with Government Code section 19992.2, subdivision (a).

Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
19 out of 29 departments or 66%
Corrective Action: Departments were required to submit corrective action plans which ensure compliance with Government Code section 19172.

Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
14 out of 29 departments or 48%
Corrective Action: Departments were required to submit corrective action plans which ensure compliance with Government Code section 19132, subdivision (b)(1).

The CRU began departmental reviews in Fiscal Year 2012-13. The first year of reviews were a small-sample baseline review in order to gauge the quality of the state’s human resource transactions and gain information to help prioritize the full compliance reviews that began in Fiscal Year 2013-14. The first three-year cycle occurred from July 2013 through June 2016. At this point in time, the majority of departments in the second three- year cycle, which began in July 2016, have been reviewed. The following table displays the repetition of violations discovered thus far.

DEPARTMENT	VIOLATION	BASELINE	CYCLE 1	CYCLE 2	
ALRB	Missing Probationary Reports	X		X	
BCDC	Inactive Disabled Advisory Com.	X		X	
BOE	Missing Documentation		X	X	
BOE	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
CAC	Inactive Disabled Advisory Com.	X		X	
CACC	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
CAL EXPO	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
CAL EXPO	Inactive Disabled Advisory Com.		X	X	
CALEPA	Inactive Disabled Advisory Com.	X		X	
CALFIRE	Missing Documentation	X	X		
CALFIRE	Visible EEO Data	X	X		
CALPERS	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
CALRECYCLE	Missing Documentation	X	X		
CCCCO	Inactive Disabled Advisory Com.	X		X	
CCHCS	Visible EEO Data		X	X	
CDA	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
CDMHC	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
CEC	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
CEC	Ethics Training Deficiency		X	X	
CHP	Visible EEO Data	X	X		
CPOST	Missing Job Analyses	X	X		
CSD	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
CSTA	Inactive Disabled Advisory Com.	X	X		
CWDB	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
DHCS	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
DMV	Visible EEO Data	X	X		
DOC	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
DTSC	Visible EEO Data		X	X	
EDD	Visible EEO Data		X	X	
FI$CAL	Inactive Disabled Advisory Com.		X	X	
FI$CAL	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
MILITARY	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
OEHHA	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
OEHHA	Inactive Disabled Advisory Com.		X	X	
OSHPD	Missing Probationary Reports		X	X	
OSPD	Inactive Disabled Advisory Com.	X		X	

Most of the departments cited in the baseline review or in cycle 1 have made significant efforts in implementing corrective action to address violations. SPB commends these departments’ efforts. SPB has reviewed 121 state departments since the CRU was established. Of these, 30 departments or 25% of departments have repeated a previous violation. The repetitions between cycle 1 and 2 have dropped to 20 departments or 17%. Those departments with repeat violations will be asked to submit memos to the Executive Officer describing what will be done to ensure that violations will be properly

addressed. Failure to provide corrective action memos, or failure to follow through with the plans outlined in these memos, may result in departments being asked to appear before the Board to discuss barriers to full compliance and explore possible solutions.
The violations described above are summarized in more detail below: Missing Probationary Reports
During the probationary period, the appointing power is required to evaluate the work and
efficiency of a probationer at sufficiently frequent intervals to keep the employee adequately informed of progress on the job. (Gov. Code, § 19172; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.795.)

The probationary period is the final step in the selection process to ensure that the individual selected can successfully perform the full scope of their job duties. Failing to use the probationary period to assist an employee in improving his or her performance or terminating the appointment upon determination that the appointment is not a good job/person match is unfair to the employee and serves to erode the quality of state government.

Inactive Disability Advisory Committee
Each state agency must establish a separate committee of employees who are individuals with a disability, or who have an interest in disability issues, to advise the head of the agency on issues of concern to employees with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 19795, subd. (b)(1).)

By not having an active Disability Advisory Committee, department heads do not have direct information on issues of concern to employees or other persons with disabilities and input to correct any underrepresentation. The lack of a Disability Advisory Committee may also limit a department’s ability to recruit and retain a qualified workforce, impact productivity, and subject the department to liability.

Missing Documentation
Appointing powers are required to retain records related to affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, examinations, merit, selection, and appointments for a minimum period of five years from the date the records are created. These records are required to be readily accessible and retained in an orderly and systematic manner. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 26.)

Without documentation, the CRU cannot verify if personnel transactions were properly conducted.

Visible EEO Data
Government Code section 19704 makes it unlawful for a hiring department to require or permit any notation or entry to be made on any application indicating or in any way

suggesting or pertaining to any protected category listed in Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a) (e.g., a person’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status). Applicants for employment in state civil service are asked to voluntarily provide ethnic data about themselves where such data is determined by CalHR to be necessary to an assessment of the fairness of the selection process and to the planning and monitoring of equal employment opportunity efforts. (Gov. Code, § 19705.) The EEO questionnaire of the state application form (STD 678) states, “this questionnaire will be separated from the application prior to the examination and will not be used in any employment decisions.”

Failing to remove EEO questionnaires from the applications prior to the examination or interview process results in applicants’ protected classes being visible, subjecting departments to potential liability.

Ethics Training Deficiency
New filers must be provided ethics training within six months of appointment. Existing filers must be trained at least once during each consecutive period of two calendar years commencing on the first odd-numbered year thereafter. (Gov. Code, § 11146.3, subd. (b).)

By failing to provide mandated ethics training, departments do not ensure that filers are aware of prohibitions related to their official position and influence.

Missing Job Analyses
The Merit Selection Manual (MSM), which is incorporated in California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 2, section 50, mandates the development and use of a job analysis for the examination process. A "job analysis shall serve as the primary basis for demonstrating and documenting the job-relatedness of examination processes conducted for the establishment of eligible lists within the State’s civil service." (MSM (Oct. 2003), § 2200, p. 2.) The MSM requires that job analyses adhere to the legal and professional standards outlined in the job analysis section of the MSM and that certain elements must be included in the job analysis studies. (Ibid.) Those requirements include the following: (1) that the job analysis be performed for the job for which the subsequent selection procedure is developed and used; (2) the methodology utilized be described and documented; (3) the job analytic data be collected from a variety of current sources;
job tasks be specified in terms of importance or criticality, and their frequency of performance; (5) and job tasks be sufficiently detailed to derive the requisite knowledge, skills, abilities (KSA's), and personal characteristics that are required to perform the essential tasks and functions of the job classification. (MSM, § 2200, pp. 2-3.)

Without the foundation of a job analysis, these examinations may not have been job- related or legally defensible.

The CRU continues to post review findings and consult with departments during reviews in order to educate departments regarding appropriate personnel practices.

With the completion of the baseline review, the first three-year cycle, and the majority of the second three-year cycle, CRU is identifying common and repetitious violations. The CRU will make recommendations to CalHR to provide more guidance to departments on common and repetitious violations. The CRU will also recommend that departments found with repeated violations face further corrective action, including but not limited to, mandated training, additional monitoring, voided examinations or appointments, and revocation or modification of delegated agreements.

A color-coded system is used to identify the severity of the violations as follows:

Red = Very Serious	
Orange = Serious	
Yellow = Non-serious or Technical	

In addition, the frequency occurrence is classified as follows:

1-9% of departments reviewed = Low
10-19% of departments reviewed = Medium
20%+ of departments reviewed = High

VERY SERIOUS ISSUES

Issue 1:

Ethics Training Was Not Provided to all Filers Within the Prescribed
Timeline

Criteria:	New filers must be provided ethics training within six months of appointment. Existing filers must be trained at least once during each consecutive period of two calendar years commencing on the first odd-numbered year thereafter. (Gov. Code, § 11146.3, subd. (b).)

Severity:	Very Serious. The departments do not ensure that filers are aware of prohibitions related to their official position and influence.

Frequency:	High. 13 out of 29 departments or 45%. (Of the 29 departments reviewed, 5 were sampled. The other 24 departments were fully reviewed.)

Cause:	Lack of effective tracking processes, changes in staffing, and supervisory and managerial follow-ups.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans which ensure compliance with Government Code sections 11146 - 11146.3.

Issue 2:

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All
Supervisors

Criteria:	Each department must provide its supervisors two hours of sexual harassment prevention training every two years. New supervisors must be provided sexual harassment prevention training within six months of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 12950.1, subd. (a).)

Severity:	Very Serious. The department does not ensure its new supervisors are properly trained to respond to sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. This limits the department’s ability to retain a quality workforce, impacts employee morale, productivity, and subjects the department to litigation.

Frequency:	High. 11 out of 29 departments or 38%. (Of the 29 departments reviewed, 5 were sampled. The other 24 departments were fully reviewed.)

Cause:	Changes in personnel staff, lack of effective tracking processes, inconsistent follow ups, and human errors.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code section 12950.1, subdivision (a).

Issue 3:	Incorrect Application of Alternate Range Criteria

Criteria:	Alternate ranges are designed to recognize increased competence in the performance of class duties based upon experience obtained while in the class. The employee gains status in the alternate range as though each range were a separate classification. (Classification and Pay Guide Section 220.)

Departments are required to calculate and apply salary rules for each appointed employee accurately based on the pay plan for the state civil service. All civil service classes have salary ranges with minimum and maximum rates. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.666.)

Severity:	Very Serious. Departments failed to comply with the state civil service pay plan by incorrectly applying compensation laws and rules in accordance with CalHR’s policies and guidelines. This results in civil service employees receiving incorrect and/or inappropriate pay amounts.

Frequency:	High. 9 out of 29 departments or 31%.

Cause:	Overlooking the individual’s work experience, technical errors, lack of review process.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.666.

Issue 4:

Nepotism Policy Failed to Comply with Civil Service Laws, Board
Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Criteria:	It is the policy of the State of California to recruit, hire and assign all employees on the basis of fitness and merit in accordance with civil service statutes, rules and regulations. (Human Resources Manual Section 1204). All department policies should emphasize that nepotism is antithetical to a merit-based personnel system and that

the department is committed to the state policy of recruiting, hiring, and assigning employees on the basis of merit. (Ibid.)

Severity:	Very serious. Nepotism is expressly prohibited in the state workplace because it is antithetical to California’s merit based civil service. Overall, departmental nepotism policies should aim to prevent favoritism or bias based on a personal relationship when recruiting, hiring, or assigning employees.

Frequency:	High. 9 out of 29 departments or 31%.

Cause:	Staff turnover, workload issues, and lack of understanding.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans which ensure compliance with Human Resources Manual Section 1204.

Issue 5:

Incorrect Application of Salary Determination Laws, Board Rules,
and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Criteria:	Departments are required to calculate and apply salary rules for each appointed employee accurately based on the pay plan for the state civil service. All civil service classes have salary ranges with minimum and maximum rates. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.666.)

Severity:	Very Serious. Incorrectly applying compensation laws and rules not in accordance with CalHR’s policies and guidelines results in the civil service employee receiving incorrect and/or inappropriate pay amounts.

Frequency:	High. 8 out of 29 departments or 28%.

Cause:	Staff turnover, lack of training, technical errors, and inadvertent oversight.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans which ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.666.

Issue 6:

Equal	Employment	Opportunity	Questionnaires	Were	Not

Separated from Applications

Criteria:	Government Code section 19704 makes it unlawful for a hiring department to require or permit any notation or entry to be made on any application indicating or in any way suggesting or pertaining to

any protected category listed in Government Code section 12940, subdivision (a) (e.g., a person's race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status). Applicants for employment in state civil service are asked to voluntarily provide ethnic data about themselves where such data is determined by the CalHR to be necessary to an assessment of the ethnic and sex fairness of the selection process and to the planning and monitoring of affirmative action efforts. (Gov. Code, § 19705.) The EEO questionnaire of the state application form (STD. 678) states, “This questionnaire will be separated from the application prior to the examination and will not be used in any employment decisions.”

Severity:	Very Serious. The applicants’ protected classes were visible, subjecting the agency to potential liability.

Frequency:	High. 7 out of 29 departments or 24%.

Cause:	Inadvertent oversight and lack of procedures and training.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code sections 19704 and 19705.

Issue 7:	Disability Advisory Committee Is Not Active

Criteria:	Each state agency must establish a separate committee of employees who are individuals with a disability, or who have an interest in disability issues, to advise the head of the agency on issues of concern to employees with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 19795, subd. (b)(1).) The department must invite all employees to serve on the committee and take appropriate steps to ensure that the final committee is comprised of members who have disabilities or who have an interest in disability issues. (Gov. Code, § 19795, subd. (b)(2).)

Severity:	Very Serious. The agency head does not have direct information on issues of concern to employees or other persons with disabilities and input to correct any underrepresentation. The lack of a DAC may limit an agency’s ability to recruit and retain a qualified workforce, impact productivity and subject the agency to liability.

Frequency:	High. 7 out of 29 departments or 24%.

Cause:	Staff turnover and workload.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code section 19795.

Issue 8:	Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors

Criteria:	Each department must provide its new supervisors a minimum of 80 hours of supervisory training within the probationary period. Upon completion of the initial training, supervisory employees shall receive a minimum 20 hours of leadership training biannually. (Gov. Code, § 19995.4, subds. (b) & (c).)

Severity:	Very Serious. The departments do not ensure leaders are properly trained. Without proper training, leaders may not properly carry out their leadership roles, including managing employees.

Frequency:	High. 7 out of 29 departments or 24%. (Of the 29 departments reviewed, 5 were sampled. The other 24 departments were fully reviewed.)

Cause:	Lack of effective tracking processes, inconsistent follow-ups and human error.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code section 19995.4, subdivisions (b) and (c).

Issue 9:	Incorrect Authorization of Out-of-Class Pay

Criteria:	Employees may be compensated for performing duties of a higher classification provided that: the assignment is made in advance in writing and the employee is given a copy of the assignment; and the duties performed by the employee are not described in a training and development assignment and further, taken as a whole are fully consistent with the types of jobs described in the specification for the higher classification; and the employee does not perform such duties for more than 120 days in a fiscal year. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.810 (b)(1)(3)(4).)

For excluded employees, there shall be no compensation for assignments that last for 15 consecutive working days or less. (Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.810, subd. (c).) An excluded employee performing in a higher class for more than 15 consecutive working days shall receive the rate of pay the excluded employee would receive if appointed to the higher class for the entire duration of the assignment, not to exceed one year. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.810, subd. (d).) An excluded employee may be assigned out-of- class work for more than 120 calendar days during any 12-month period only if the appointing power files a written statement with the Department certifying that the additional out-of-class work is required to meet a need that cannot be met through other administrative or civil service alternatives. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.810, subd. (e).)

Severity:	Very Serious. Departments failed to comply with the state civil service pay plan by incorrectly applying compensation laws and rules in accordance with CalHR’s policies and guidelines. This results in civil service employees receiving incorrect and/or inappropriate compensation.

Frequency:	High. 6 out of 29 departments or 21%.

Cause:	Staff turnover, lack or training, human error, lack of review process.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.810.

Issue 10:	Incorrect Authorization of Bilingual Pay

Criteria:	For any state agency, a “qualified” bilingual employee, person, or interpreter is someone who CalHR has tested and certified, someone who was tested and certified by a state agency or other approved testing authority, and/or someone who has met the testing or certification standards for outside or contract interpreters as proficient in both the English language and the non-English language to be used. (Gov. Code, § 7296 subd. (a)(1), (2) & (3).) An individual must be in a position that has been certified by the department as a position which requires the use of bilingual skills on a continuing basis averaging 10 percent of the time spent either conversing, interpreting or transcribing in a second language and time spent on closely related activities performed directly in conjunction with specific bilingual transactions. (Pay Differential 14.)

Severity:	Very Serious. Failure to comply with the state civil service pay plan by incorrectly applying compensation rules in accordance with CalHR’s policies and guidelines results in civil service employees receiving incorrect and/or inappropriate compensation.

Frequency:	Medium. 5 out of 29 departments or 17%.

Cause:	Failure to re-evaluate the need for the continuation of bilingual pay and out of date processes and procedures.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code section 7296.

Issue 11:	Incorrect Application of Employee Leave

Criteria:	The state recognizes two different types of absences while an employee is on pay status: paid and unpaid. Unpaid absences can affect whether a pay period is considered to be a qualifying or non- qualifying pay period for State Service and leave accruals. In the application of Government Code section 19837, an employee shall be considered to have a month of state service if the employee either: (1) has had 11 or more working days of service in a monthly pay period; or (2) would have had 11 or more working days of service in a monthly pay period but was laid off or on a leave of absence for the purpose of lessening the impact of an impending layoff. Full time and fractional employees who work less than 11 working days in a pay period will have a non-qualifying month and will not receive State Service or Leave Accruals for that month. (California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.608.) Hourly or daily rate employees working in a state agency in which the fulltime workweek is 40 hours who earn the equivalent of 160 hours of service in a monthly pay period or accumulated pay periods shall be considered to have a complete month, a month of service, or continuous service. Hourly or daily rate employees who work less than 160 hours in a pay period will have a non-qualifying month and not be eligible to receive State Service or Leave Accruals for that month. (California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.609.)

Severity:	Very Serious. Failure to accurately apply transactions resulted in an employee receiving incorrect state service and/or leave accruals.

Frequency:	Medium. 5 out of 29 departments or 17%.

Cause:	Lack of training and oversight.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, sections 599.608, 599.609, and Government Code section 19837.

Issue 12:	Errors in Tracking Actual Time Worked

Criteria:	If any employee is appointed to an intermittent time base position on a TAU basis, there are two controlling time limitations that must be considered. The first controlling factor is the constitutional limit of nine months in any 12 consecutive months for temporary appointments that cannot be extended for any reason. (Cal. Const., art. VII, § 5.) The nine-month period may be computed on a calendar or actual basis. When computing time worked, 189 days equals nine months. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 265.1, subd. (b).)

Another controlling factor limits the maximum work time for student, youth, and seasonal classifications to 1500 hours. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 265.1, subd. (d).)

Severity:	Very Serious. The amount of days or hours an individual may work in a temporary appointment is limited in the state civil service. TAU appointments are distinguished from other appointments as they can be made in the absence of an appropriate employment list. Intermittent appointments are not to be used to fill full-time or part- time positions. Such use would constitute illegal circumvention of these eligible lists.

Frequency:	Medium. 5 out of 29 departments or 17%.

Cause:	Failure to monitor the employee’s days worked, human error, and miscalculations.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 265.1.

Issue 13:

Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Report Directly
to the Head of the Agency

Criteria:	The appointing power must appoint, at the managerial level, an EEO Officer, who shall report directly to, and be under the supervision of, the Director of the department to develop, implement, coordinate, and monitor the department’s EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19795.)

Severity:	Very Serious. The EEO Officer does not have direct access to the head of the organization, diminishing the significance of the EEO program. In the non-compliant department, not only is the EEO Officer not directly supervised by the head of the agency, but there

was no meaningful reporting relationship on EEO matters. To have an effective EEO program, the head of the organization must be actively involved.

Frequency:	Medium. 4 out of 29 departments or 14%.

Cause:	EEO Officers’ reporting relationships and duties were not properly reflected on the organizational charts and Duty Statements provided or inadvertent oversight.

Action:	Departments were required to provide corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code section 19795.

Issue 14:	Unlawful Appointment

Criteria:	Pursuant to Government Code section 19050, all civil service appointments must be made in accordance with the Civil Service Act and Board Rules, and not otherwise.

Severity:	Very Serious. An unlawful appointment provides the employee with an unfair and unearned appointment advantage over other employees whose appointments have been processed in compliance with the requirements of civil service law. Unlawful appointments which are not corrected also create appointment inconsistencies that jeopardize the equitable administration of the civil service merit system.

When an unlawful appointment is voided, the employee loses any tenure in the position, as well as seniority credits, eligibility to take promotional examinations, and compensation at the voided appointment level. If “bad faith” is determined on the part of the appointing power, civil or criminal action may be initiated. Disciplinary action may also be pursued against any officer or employee in a position of authority who directs any officer or employee to take action in violation of the appointment laws. If bad faith is determined on the part of the employee, the employee may be required to reimburse all compensation resulting from the unlawful appointment and may also be subject to disciplinary action.

Frequency:	Low. 2 out of 29 departments or 7%.

Cause:	Misunderstanding of MQ’s and HR staff errors.

Action:	Departments were required to provide corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code section 19050.

Issue 15:	An Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Was Not Issued

Criteria:	The appointing power for each state agency has the major responsibility for monitoring the effectiveness of its EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19794.) To that end, the appointing power must issue a policy statement committed to EEO. (Gov. Code, § 19794, subd. (a).)

Severity:	Very Serious. A policy statement committing to EEO is a vital step in preventing discrimination in the workplace. Without an EEO policy in place, departments do not have established EEO expectations in place

Frequency:	Low. 2 out of 29 departments or 7%.

Cause:	Staffing and workload issues.

Action:	Departments were required to provide corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code section 19794.

Issue 16:	Incorrect Authorization of Pay Differentials

Criteria:	A pay differential may be appropriate when a subgroup of positions within the overall job class might have unusual circumstances, competencies, or working conditions that distinguish these positions from other positions in the same class. Pay differentials are based on qualifying pay criteria such as: work locations or shift assignments; professional or educational certification; temporary responsibilities; special licenses, skills or training; performance based pay; incentive-based pay; or, recruitment and retention. (CalHR Classification and Pay Manual Section 230.)

Severity:	Very Serious: The department failed to comply with the state civil service pay plan by incorrectly applying compensation laws and rules in accordance with CalHR’s policies and guidelines. This results in civil service employees receiving incorrect and/or inappropriate compensation.

Frequency:	Low. 2 out of 29 departments or 7%.

Cause:	Misinterpretation of the pay differential, miscalculations and lack of review processes.

Action:	Departments were required to provide corrective action plans to ensure compliance with CalHR Classification and Pay Manual Section 230 and applicable pay differentials.

Issue 17:

Workers’	Compensation	Policy	Was	Not	Provided	to	New
Employees by the End of First Pay Period

Criteria:	Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9880, employers shall provide to every new employee at the time of hire or by the end of the first pay period, written notice concerning the rights, benefits, and obligations under workers’ compensation law.

Severity:	Very Serious. Departments do not ensure that employees are aware of policies and procedures concerning workers’ compensation.

Frequency:	Low. 2 out of 29 departments or 7%.

Cause:	Lack of policy and process.

Action:	Departments were required to provide corrective actions plans to ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9880.

Issue 18:

Certification List Was Not Produced for SROA Clearance Before
External Transfer Appointment

Criteria:	SROA list clearance is required prior to making an appointment via external transfer, voluntary demotion, or training and development assignment to a different department. (SROA Manual, Attachment D).

Severity:	Very Serious. A certification list must be ordered prior to transfer from a different department in order to ensure any potential SROA candidates are given priority to the job vacancy.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Lack of process and procedure.

Action:	The department was required to provide a corrective action plan to ensure compliance with the SROA Manual.

Issue 19:

Equal	Employment	Opportunity	Officer	Also	Serves	As	the
Personnel Officer at a State Agency with More Than 500 Employees

Criteria:	California Government Code section 19795, subdivision (a), states “The appointing power of each state agency and the director of each state department shall appoint, at the managerial level, an equal employment opportunity officer, who shall report directly to, and be under the supervision of, the director of the department, to develop, implement, coordinate, and monitor the agency’s equal employment opportunity program. In a state agency with less than 500 employees, the equal employment opportunity officer may be the personnel officer.”

Severity:	Very Serious. The EEO Officer is responsible for developing, implementing, coordinating, and monitoring their department’s EEO program. Due to the substantial responsibilities held by each department’s EEO Officer, it is essential that each department, employing more than 500 employees, appoint an EEO Officer, at the managerial level, that may successfully maintain the effectiveness of the EEO program without the undue burden of also maintaining the effectiveness of the department’s Personnel Office.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Lack of understanding.

Action:	The department was required to submit a corrective action plan for ensuring compliance with California Government Code section 19795.

Issue 20:

Complainants Were Not Notified of the Reasons for Delays in EEO
Investigation Decisions Within the Prescribed Time Period

Criteria:	The appointing power must issue a written decision to the complainant within 90 days of the complaint being filed. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 64.4, subd. (a).) If the appointing power is unable to issue its decision within the prescribed time period, the appointing power must inform the complainant in writing of the reasons for the delay. (Ibid.)

Severity:	Very Serious. Employees were not informed of the reasons for delays in decisions for complaints. Employees may feel their concerns are not being taken seriously, which can leave the agency open to liability and low employee morale.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Staff turnover, lack of training and awareness of the laws and rules.

Action:	The department was required to submit a corrective action plan for ensuring compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 64.4, subdivision (a).

Issue 21:

Incorrect Application of Laws, Rules, and CalHR Policies and
Guidelines for Red Circle Rate Pay

Criteria:	Pursuant to Government Code section 19837, red circle rates may be authorized for an employee above the salary for his or her classification to mitigate the hardship when an employee’s salary is lowered through no fault of the employee.

Severity:	Very Serious. The Department failed to comply with the state civil service pay plan by incorrectly applying compensation laws and rules in accordance with CalHR’s policies and guidelines. This results in civil service employees receiving incorrect and/or inappropriate compensation.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Misapplication of red circle rate.

Action:	The department was required to provide a corrective action plan to ensure compliance with Government Code section 19837.

Issue 22:	Incorrect Authorization of Arduous Pay

Criteria:	Departments have delegated authority to approve arduous pay for excluded employees who are FLSA-exempt, but CalHR approval is required for any arduous pay for represented employees. An employee is eligible for this pay differential if they are assigned work that exceeds normal work demands. The work must be extraordinarily demanding, time consuming, and significantly exceed their normal workweek. The employee cannot be entitled to receive any other sort of compensation such as overtime. Although departments have delegated authority to approve Pay Differential 62, they are required to fill out Form 777, documenting the circumstances, assessment and rationale behind all Pay Differential
62 approvals. A new Form 777 should be filled out for every employee receiving the pay differential, every time an employee is approved to receive a new pay differential, and every time an employee wants to extend their arduous pay. (Human Resources Online Manual Section 1702.)

Severity:	Very Serious. The department failed to comply with the state civil service pay plan by incorrectly applying compensation laws and rules. This results in civil service employees receiving incorrect and/or inappropriate compensation.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Inappropriate utilization of arduous pay.

Action:	The department was required to submit a corrective action plan for ensuring compliance with Human Resources Online Manual Section 1702.

Issue 23:	Department Did Not Account for All Timesheets

Criteria:	In accordance with the California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665, “each appointing power shall keep complete and accurate time and attendance records for each employee and officer employed within the agency over which it has jurisdiction”.

Severity:	Very Serious. Errors in timekeeping practices.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Timesheets outside the electronic systems were not properly processed.

Action:	The department was required to submit a corrective action plan for ensuring compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665.

Issue 24:

Workers’ Compensation Notice to Employees Poster Does Not
Meet Posting Requirements

Criteria:	Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9881, employers must use a poster which meets the posting requirements and has been approved by the Administrative Director.

Severity:	Very Serious. The department does not ensure that its employees have essential workers’ compensation information.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Workers’ compensation poster was inadvertently removed.

Action:	The department was required to provide a corrective action plan to ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9881.

Issue 25:

Injured Employee(s) Did Not Receive Workers’ Compensation Claim Forms Within One Working Day of Notice or Knowledge of
Injury

Criteria:	An employer shall provide a claim form and notice of potential eligibility for workers’ compensation benefits to their employee within one working day of notice or knowledge that the employee has suffered a work related injury or illness (Labor Code, § 5401).

Severity:	Very Serious. Injured employees were not provided the form within the 24-hour time period. Providing the form within 24-hours of injury prevents any delay in treatment to which the employee is entitled. A work related injury can result in lost time beyond the employee’s work shift at the time of injury and/or result in additional medical treatment beyond first aid.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Human error.

Action:	The department was required to provide a corrective action plan to ensure compliance with Labor Code section 5401.

SERIOUS ISSUES

Issue 26:	Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

Criteria:	“Appointing powers shall prepare performance reports and keep them on file as prescribed by department rule.” (Gov. Code, § 19992.2, subd. (a).) Each supervisor, as designated by the appointing power, shall make an appraisal in writing and shall discuss with the employee overall work performance at least once in each twelve calendar months following the end of the employee's probationary period. (Cal. Code Regs., tit.2, § 599.798.)

Severity:	Serious. The department does not ensure that all employees are apprised of work performance issues and/or goals in a fair and systematic manner.

Frequency:	High. 22 out of 29 departments or 76%.

Cause:	Inadequate focus, lack of tracking, staff turnover and deficiency in the process.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code section 19992.2 and California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.798.

Issue 27:

Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All
Appointments Reviewed

Criteria:	The service of a probationary period is required when an employee enters or is promoted in the state civil service by permanent appointment from an employment list; upon reinstatement after a break in continuity of service resulting from a permanent separation; or after any other type of appointment situation not specifically excepted from the probationary period. (Gov. Code, § 19171.) During the probationary period, the appointing power shall evaluate the work and efficiency of a probationer in the manner and at such periods as the department rules may require. (Gov. Code, § 19172.) A report of the probationer’s performance shall be made to the employee at sufficiently frequent intervals to keep the employee adequately informed of progress on the job. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.795.) A written appraisal of performance shall be made to the Department within 10 days after the end of each one-third portion of the probationary period. (Ibid.) The Board’s record retention rules require that appointing powers retain all probationary reports for five years from the date the record is created. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 26, subd. (a)(3).)

Severity:	Serious. The probationary period is the final step in the selection process to ensure that the individual selected can successfully perform the full scope of their job duties. Failing to use the probationary period to assist an employee in improving his or her performance or terminating the appointment upon determination that the appointment is not a good job/person match is unfair to the employee and serves to erode the quality of state government.

Frequency:	High. 19 out of 29 departments or 66%.

Cause:	Lack of procedures, inadequate tracking, inconsistent follow-up, staff turnover and workload issues.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code section 19172.

Issue 28:	Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts

Criteria:	“The contract shall not be executed until the state agency proposing to execute the contract has notified all organizations that represent state employees who perform the type of work to be contracted.” (Gov. Code, § 19132.)

Severity:	Serious. Unions must be notified of impending personal services contracts in order to ensure they are aware contracts are being proposed for work that their members could perform.

Frequency:	High. 14 out of 29 departments or 48%.

Cause:	Lack of procedures and training, staff turnover, misinterpretation, human error, and insufficient internal review.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to
ensure compliance with Government Code section 19132.

Issue 29:

Personal	Services	Contracts	Did	Not	Follow	Procedural

Requirements

Criteria:	Whenever an agency executes a personal services contract under Government Code section 19130, subdivision (b), the agency shall document, with specificity and detailed factual information, the reasons why the contract satisfies one or more of the conditions

specified in Government Code section 19130, subdivision (b). (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 547.60, subd. (a).) The agency shall maintain the written justification for the duration of the contract and any extensions of the contract or in accordance with the record retention requirements of section 26, whichever is longer. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 547.60, subd. (b).)

Severity:	Serious. Specific and detailed written justifications must be submitted with each PSC in order to ensure that the conditions established in Government Code section 19130 are met, including services not being available within civil service.

Frequency:	High. 10 out of 29 departments or 34%.

Cause:	Lack of procedures and training, staff turnover, and human error.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code section 19130.

Issue 30:

Department Has Not Implemented a Monthly Internal Audit Process
to Verify Timesheets are Keyed Accurately and Timely

Criteria:	Each appointing power shall keep complete and accurate time and attendance records for each employee and officer employed within the agency over which it has jurisdiction. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.665.) Departments are directed to create an audit process to verify all leave input is keyed accurately and timely. (Human Resources Manual Section 2101.) Attendance records shall be corrected by the pay period following the pay period in which the error occurred. (Ibid.)

Severity:	Serious. In order for Department leave accounting reports to reflect accurate data, the review of the leave accounting records and corrections, if necessary, are to be completed by the pay period following the pay period in which the leave was keyed into the leave accounting system. This means corrections are to be made prior to the next monthly leave activity report being produced.

Frequency:	Medium. 5 out of 29 departments or 17%.

Cause:	Lack of understanding, human error, and deficient validation processes.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665 and Human Resources Manual Section 2101.

Issue 31:	Administrative Time Off (ATO) Was Not Properly Documented

Criteria:	Appointing authorities are authorized to approve ATO for up to five
working days. (Gov. Code, § 19991.10.) Furthermore, they “have delegated authority to approve up to 30 calendar days.” (Human Resources Manual Section 2121.) Any ATO in excess of 30 calendar days must be approved in advance by the CalHR. (Ibid.) In most cases, if approved, the extension will be for an additional 30 calendar days. (Ibid.) The appointing authority is responsible for submitting ATO extension requests to CalHR at least 5 working days prior to the expiration date of the approved leave. (Ibid.)

When requesting an ATO extension, the appointing authority must provide a justification establishing good cause for maintaining the employee on ATO for the additional period of time. (Ibid.) ATO may not be used and will not be granted for an indefinite period. (Ibid.) If CalHR denies a request to extend ATO, or the appointing authority fails to request approval from CalHR to extend the ATO, the employee must be returned to work in some capacity. (Ibid.)

Regardless of the length of ATO, appointing authorities must maintain thorough documentation demonstrating the justification for the ATO, the length of the ATO, and the approval of the ATO. (Ibid.)

Severity:	Serious. Because an employee on ATO is being paid while not working, a failure to closely monitor ATO usage could result in costly abuse.

Frequency:	Medium. 3 out of 29 departments or 10%.

Cause:	Inadvertent errors.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Government Code section 19991.10 and CalHR Online Manual Section 2121.

Issue 32:

Unlawful Appointment Investigation Did Not Comply with CalHR
Delegation Agreement

Criteria:	Article VII of the State Constitution requires that permanent appointments in State civil service be based on merit as ascertained by competitive examination. Departments that have signed a formal Unlawful Appointment Investigation Delegation Agreement with CalHR have the authority to investigate, determine cause, and resolve unlawful appointments. Departments also have the authority to directly notify the State Controller’s Office of the action needed to void the appointment on the employee’s work history.

Severity:	Serious. An unlawful appointment provides the employee with an unfair and unearned appointment advantage over other employees whose appointments have been processed in compliance with the requirements of civil service law. Unlawful appointments which are not corrected also create appointment inconsistencies that jeopardize the equitable administration of the civil service merit system. An uncorrected unlawful appointment could be discovered at a future date by another appointing authority and place the employee’s employment status in jeopardy.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Lack of oversight.

Action:	The department was required to submit a corrective action plan to ensure compliance with Article VII of the State Constitution and its Unlawful Appointment Investigation Delegation Agreement with CalHR.

Issue 33:	Eligibility Preference Was Not Considered

Criteria:	Government Code section 18220, subdivision (a), states: “State agencies, when hiring for internships and student assistant positions, shall give preference to qualified applicants who are, or have been, dependent children in foster care, homeless youth, or formerly incarcerated youth. The preference shall be granted to applicants up to 26 years of age.” For the purpose of this section, "preference" means priority over similarly qualified applicants for placement in the position.

Severity:	Serious. Not properly applying hiring preference for student assistants and internships is a violation of law and does not serve to provide the intended support for specific youth.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Lack of policy and procedure.

Action:	The department was required to submit a corrective action plan to ensure compliance with Government Code section 18220.

Issue 34:	Employee Time and Attendance Records Were Not Retained

Criteria:	Each appointing power shall keep complete and accurate time and attendance records for each employee and officer employed within the agency over which it has jurisdiction. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.665.) Such records shall be kept in the form and manner prescribed by the Department of Finance in connection with its powers to devise, install and supervise a modern and complete accounting system for state agencies.” (Ibid.)

Severity:	Serious. Without time and attendance records, the department could not properly reconcile employees’ leave accruals and compensation with its leave accounting system.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Inadvertent error.

Action:	The department was required to submit a corrective action plan to ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665.

NON-SERIOUS OR TECHNICAL ISSUES

Issue 35:

Leave Reduction Policy and Plans Were Not Provided to All
Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits

Criteria:	“It is the policy of the state to foster and maintain a workforce that has the capacity to effectively produce quality services expected by both internal customers and the citizens of California. (Human Resources Online Manual Section 2124.) Therefore, appointing authorities and state managers and supervisors must create a leave reduction policy for the organization and monitor employees’ leave to ensure compliance with the departmental leave policy. Employees who have significant “over-the-cap” leave balances must have a leave reduction plan in place and be actively reducing hours.” (Ibid.)

Severity:	Non-serious or Technical. California state employees have accumulated significant leave hours creating an unfunded liability for departmental budgets. The value of this liability increases with each passing promotion and salary increase. Accordingly, leave balances exceeding established limits need to be addressed immediately.

Frequency:	High. 17 out of 29 departments or 59%.

Cause:	Workload issues.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with Human Resources Online Manual Section 2124.

Issue 36:

Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not
Completed For All Leave Records Reviewed

Criteria:	Departments are responsible for maintaining accurate and timely leave accounting records for their employees. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.665.) Departments shall identify and record all errors found using a Leave Activity and Correction form. (Ibid.) Furthermore, CalHR Online Manual Section 2101 requires departments to certify that all leave records for the unit/pay period identified on the certification form have been reviewed and all leave errors identified have been corrected. (Ibid.)

Severity:	Non-serious or Technical. Departments must document that they reviewed all leave inputted into their leave accounting system to ensure accuracy and timeliness. For post-audit purposes, the

completion of Leave Activity and Correction Certification forms demonstrates compliance with CalHR policies and guidelines.

Frequency:	High. 10 out of 29 departments or 34%.

Cause:	Not having documented processes, lack of training and staff turnover.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.665 and CalHR Online Manual Section 2101.

Issue 37:

Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate
Amount of Time

Criteria:	As specified in California Code or Regulations, title 2, section 26, appointing powers are required to retain records related to affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, examinations, merit, selection, and appointments for a minimum period of five years from the date the record is created. These records are required to be readily accessible and retained in an orderly and systematic manner. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 26.)

Severity:	Non-Serious or Technical. Without documentation, the CRU could not verify if the appointments were properly conducted.

Frequency:	High. 6 out of 29 departments or 21%.

Cause:	Lack of process and human error.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations title 2, section 26.

Issue 38:	Departmental Leave Reduction Policy Was Not Developed

Criteria:	“It is the policy of the state to foster and maintain a workforce that has the capacity to effectively produce quality services expected by both internal customers and the citizens of California. (Human Resources Online Manual Section 2124.) Therefore, appointing authorities and state managers and supervisors must create a leave reduction policy for the organization and monitor employees’ leave to ensure compliance with the departmental leave policy; and;

ensure employees who have significant ‘over-the-cap’ leave balances have a leave reduction plan in place and are actively reducing hours”. (Ibid.)

Severity:	Non-serious or Technical. California state employees have accumulated significant leave hours over the last several years creating an unfunded liability for departmental budgets. The value of this liability increases with each passing promotion and salary increase. Accordingly, leave balances exceeding established limits need to be addressed immediately.

Frequency:	Low. 2 out of 29 departments or 7%.

Cause:	Workload issues.

Action:	Departments were required to submit corrective action plans to ensure compliance with CalHR Online Manual Section 2124.

Issue 39:	Incorrectly Posted Leave Usage and/or Leave Credit

Criteria:	Departments shall create a monthly internal audit process to verify that all leave input into any leave accounting system is keyed accurately and timely. (Human Resources Manual Section 2101.) If an employee’s attendance record is determined to have errors or it is determined that the employee has insufficient balances for a leave type used, the attendance record must be amended. (Ibid.) Attendance records shall be corrected by the pay period following the pay period in which the error occurred. (Ibid.)

Severity:	Non-serious or Technical. Errors in posting leave usage and/or leave credits puts the department at risk of incurring additional costs from the initiation of collection efforts from overpayments, the risk of litigation related to recovering inappropriately credited leave hours and funds, and/or the increase of the state’s pension payments.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	The department was behind in cross checking the leave postings.

Action:	The department was required to submit a corrective action plan to ensure compliance with CalHR Online Manual Section 2101.

Issue 40:	Job Announcement Was Not Advertised for the Minimum Period

Criteria:	Unless a collective bargaining contract between a recognized public employee organization and the state provides otherwise, all online job announcements shall be posted for a minimum period of ten calendar days, except the appointing power may post a job announcement for a shorter period of time where there is a critical hiring need. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 249.2, subd. (b).)

Severity:	Non-Serious or Technical. By not posting a job announcement for the minimum 10 calendar day period, the department is not engaging in a broad and inclusive recruitment.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Advertisement term was incorrectly entered.

Action:	The department was required to submit a corrective action plan to ensure compliance with California Code Regulations, title 2, section 249.2, subdivision (b).

Issue 41:	Unsigned and/or Undated Performance Appraisals

Criteria:	Each employee shall be given a copy of the written appraisal covering the employee’s own performance and is privileged to discuss it with the appointing power before it is filed. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 599.798, subd. (e).)

Severity:	Technical. Due to the lack of employees’ signature and date on the performance appraisals reviewed, the CRU cannot verify whether employees discussed their performance appraisals with their supervisors/managers in a timely manner.

Frequency:	Low. 1 out of 29 departments or 3%.

Cause:	Human error.

Action:	The department was required to submit a corrective action plan to ensure compliance with California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 599.798, subdivision (e).

SUMMARY OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

During fiscal year 18/19, SPB completed two special investigations, both concerning the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR).

A special investigation was conducted into the Associate Safety Engineer (ASE) examination administered by DIR. The matter was initially brought to SPB as a merit complaint filed by a candidate appealing his unsuccessful score in the ASE examination. The Appeals Division determined that there were significant irregularities in the examination and referred the matter to CRU for special investigation.

The results of CRU’s findings were divided into two categories:

Examination Administration, which refers to how the examination itself was administered by the panel members, and
Examination Process, which refers to the manner in which staff processed and maintained documents and other information relative to the examination.
Subsequently, the CRU found that DIR improperly administered an open/non-promotional ASE examination due to inconsistent probing by panel members. CRU also found that DIR failed to keep sufficient and accurate documentation throughout the examination process.

In May 2018, the California State Auditor provided a confidential Investigative Report to the State Personnel Board. This report detailed their findings of improper governmental activities conducted by the former Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (CB).

SPB conducted a special investigation into allegations that CB engaged in misconduct by violating the civil service rules and merit principles by appointing her daughter, JB, and another DIR employee, AC to civil service positions. SPB also investigated allegations that JB had acted in bad faith in securing these appointments.

The scope of SPB’s review included JB’s civil service appointments between the period 2011 to 2017 and AC’s civil service appointments between the period 2012 to 2014.

SPB found that both JB and AC had been illegally appointed, and that JB had secured one of her appointments in bad faith. DIR was ordered to void the unlawful appointments, Take appropriate disciplinary action against all management level staff who were involved in processing the unlawful appointments, and investigate any other unlawful appointments and take appropriate action.

COMPLIANCE REVIEW UNIT COSTS

The CRU completed 29 compliance reviews and two special investigations from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. The total cost of the combined completed reviews is $1,328,542.00. The total only includes completed reviews and special investigations and does not include compliance reviews or special investigations in process but not completed during fiscal year 18/19 . A per department breakdown of costs for each review and special investigation is listed in the Index of Compliance Reviews and Special Investigations Costs in this report.

INDEX OF FINDINGS FOR COMPLIANCE REVIEWS

California Arts Council
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
An Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Was Not Issued
A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established
Personal Services Contracts Did Not Follow Procedural Requirements
Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Actual Time Worked Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not Completed for All Leave Records Reviewed
Nepotism Policy Failed to Comply with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

California Coastal Commission
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Salary Determinations Complied with Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Pay Differentials Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Out-of-Class Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off (ATO) Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Department Has Not Implemented a Monthly Internal Audit Process to Verify Timesheets Are Keyed Accurately and Timely

Leave Reduction Policy and Plans Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Failed to Comply with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees
California Conservation Corps
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Mandated Training Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Incorrect Application of Salary Determination Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Alternate Range Movements Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Exceptions to Salary Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Arduous Pay Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Authorization of Out-of-Class Pay
Administrative Time Off Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrectly Posted Leave Usage and/or Leave Credit
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to All Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisal Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

California Department of Aging
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Permanent Withhold Actions Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules

Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Alternate Range Movements Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Auditing and Timekeeping Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Reduction Plans Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

California Department of Child Support Services
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Permanent Withhold Actions Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Unlawful Appointment Investigation Did Not Comply with CalHR Delegation Agreement
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Alternate Range Movements Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Bilingual Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Pay Differential Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Out-of-Class Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Auditing and Timekeeping Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Leave Reduction Plans Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

California Energy Commission (Training Sampled)
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Permanent Withhold Actions Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Job Announcement Was Not Advertised for the Minimum Period
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time
Unlawful Appointment Investigation Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Report Directly to the Head of the Agency
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Also Serves as the Personnel Officer at a State Agency with More Than 500 Employees
Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Application of Alternate Range Criteria
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Bilingual Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Pay Differential Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Out-of-Class Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Errors in Tracking Actual Time Worked
Administrative Time Off (ATO) Was Not Properly Documented
Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not Completed for All Leave Records Reviewed
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits

715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Failed to Comply with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisal Policy and Processes Complied with Civil Service Laws and Regulations and CalHR Policies and Guidelines

California Gambling Control Commission
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Out-of-Class Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Auditing and Timekeeping Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Reduction Plans Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Departmental Leave Reduction Policy Was Not Developed
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

California Department of Pesticide Regulation
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Alternate Range Movements Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Arduous Pay Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Bilingual Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off (ATO) Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Errors in Tracking Actual Time Worked
Incorrectly Posted Leave Usage and/or Leave Credit
Leave Reduction Plans Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Unlawful Appointment
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from Applications (Appointments)
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
An Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Was Not Issued
A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established
Written Justification Was Not Provided Prior to Approval
Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Out-of-Class Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Actual Time Worked Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Reduction Efforts Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
715 Transaction Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrectly Posted Leave Usage and/or Leave Credit
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

California Health Facilities Financing Authority
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Auditing and Timekeeping Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to All Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

California Military Department
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for All Appointments Reviewed
Complainants Were Not Notified of the Reasons for Delays in EEO Investigation Decisions Within the Prescribed Time Period
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Incorrect Application of Salary Determination Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Pay Differential Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Authorization of Out-of-Class Pay
Actual Time Worked Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not Completed for All Leave Records
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Failed to Comply with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

California State Teachers’ Retirement System (Training Sampled)
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All Applications (Examinations
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from All Applications (Appointments)
Disability Advisory Committee Was Not Active
Personal Services Contracts Did Not Follow Procedural Requirements
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Sexual Harassment Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Alternate Range Movements Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Red Circle Rate Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Arduous Pay Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Pay Differentials Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Out- of-Class Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Completed for All Leave Records
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to All Employees Whose Leave Balances Were Over the CAP

Incorrect Application of 715 Transaction
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (Training Sampled)
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
Incorrect Application of Salary Determination Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not Completed for All Leave Records Reviewed
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Worker’s Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Permanent Withhold Actions Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from Applications (Appointments)
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Insufficient and/or Incomplete Written Justifications
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors

Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Alternate Range Movements Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Red Circle Rate Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Authorization of Bilingual Pay
Pay Differential Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Out-of-Class Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Errors in Tracking Actual Time Worked
Administrative Time Off (ATO) Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Department Has Not Implemented a Monthly Internal Audit Process to Verify Timesheets Are Keyed Accurately and Timely
Leave Reduction Plans Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees
Unsigned and/or Undated Performance Appraisals

California Public Employees’ Retirement System
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Permanent Withhold Actions Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time
Unlawful Appointment Investigation Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
Incorrect Application of Salary Determination Laws, Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Incorrect Application of Alternate Range Criteria
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Application of Laws, Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines for Red Circle Rate Pay
Incorrect Authorization of Bilingual Pay
Authorization of Pay Differentials Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Out-of-Class Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Errors in Tracking Actual Time Worked
Administrative Time Off (ATO) Was Not Properly Documented
Department Did Not Account for All Timesheets
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided for All Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
Incorrect Application of 715 Transactions
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisal Policy and Processes Complied with Civil Service Laws and Regulations and CalHR Policies and Guidelines

California State Controller’s Office (Training Sampled)
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Incorrect Application of Salary Determination Laws, Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Alternate Range Movements Did Not Comply with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Authorization of Bilingual Pay
Pay Differential Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Authorization of Out-of-Class Pay
Errors in Tracking Actual Time Worked

Administrative Time Off (ATO) Was Not Properly Documented
Leave Auditing and Timekeeping Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
Incorrect Application of 715 Transaction
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

California State Lottery Commission
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Personal Services Contracts Did Not Follow Procedural Requirements
Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Incorrect Application of Salary Determination Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Application of Alternate Range Movement
Hiring Above Minimum Pay Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Authorization of Arduous Pay
Incorrect Authorization of Bilingual Pay
Incorrect Authorization of Pay Differential
Incorrect Authorization of Out-of-Class Pay
Administrative Time Off Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not Completed for All Leave Records Reviewed
Leave Reduction Policy Was Not Provided to Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisal Policy and Processes Complied with Civil Service Laws and Regulations, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines

California State Transportation Agency (Training Sampled)
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Personal Services Contracts Did Not Follow Procedural Requirements
Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not Completed for All Leave Records Reviewed
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
Departmental Leave Reduction Policy Was Not Developed
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from Applications (Examinations)
Certification List Was Not Produced for SROA Clearance Before External Transfer Appointment
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Report Directly to the Head of the Agency
Disability Advisory Committee Is Not Active
Personal Services Contracts Did Not Follow Procedural Requirements
Union Was Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Incorrect Application of Salary Determination Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Out of Class Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Leave Auditing and Timekeeping Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to All Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

Commission on State Mandates
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
EEO Officer’s Duty Statement Does Not Reflect EEO Duties
Personal Services Contracts Did Not Comply with Procedural Requirements
Union Was Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Mandated Training Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not Completed for All Leave Records Reviewed
Leave Reduction Plans Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Failed to Comply with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Policy Was Not Provided to New Employees by the End of First Pay Period
Workers’ Compensation Notice to Employee Poster Does Not Meet Posting Requirements
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

Department of Business Oversight
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Disability Advisory Committee Is Not Active
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Application of Alternate Range Criteria

Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Bilingual Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Pay Differential Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Temporary Authorization Employees’ Time Worked Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Auditing and Timekeeping Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Reduction Plan Was Not Provided to Employee Whose Leave Balance Exceeded Established Limits
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Failed to Comply with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisal Policy and Processes Complied with Civil Service Laws and Regulations and CalHR Policies and Guidelines

California Department of Community Services and Development
Permanent Withhold Actions Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Application of Alternate Range Criteria
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Authorization of Bilingual Pay
Out-of-Class Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Temporary Authorization Employees’ Time Worked Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Department Has Not Implemented a Monthly Internal Audit Process to Verify All Leave Input is Keyed Accurately and Timely
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Failed to Comply with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Worker’s Compensation Policy Was Not Provided to New Employees by the End of First Pay Period
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees
California Workforce Development Board
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from Applications (Appointments)
A Disability Advisory Committee Has Not Been Established
Equal Employment Opportunity Officer Does Not Report Directly to the Head of the Agency
Personal Services Contracts Did Not Follow Procedural Requirements
Union Was Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Alternate Range Movements Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Department Has Not Implemented a Monthly Internal Audit Process to Verify Timesheets Are Keyed Accurately and Timely
Leave Reduction Complied with Civil Service Laws and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Application of 715 Transaction
Department Does Not Maintain a Current Written Nepotism Policy
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

Department of Conservation
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not Separated from Applications (Appointments)
Eligibility Preference Was Not Considered
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Ethics Training Was Not Provided to all Filers Within the Prescribed Timeline
Application of Salary Determination Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Application of Alternate Range Criteria
Arduous Pay Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Authorization of Out-of-Class Pay
Red Circle Rate Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Actual Time Worked Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Department Has Implemented a Monthly Internal Audit Process to Verify Timesheets Are Keyed Accurately and Timely
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided to All Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
Incorrect Application of 715 Transaction
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Injured Employee(s) Did Not Receive Workers’ Compensation Claim Forms Within One Working Day of Notice or Knowledge of Injury
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

Department of Health Care Services
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Permanent Withhold Actions Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Unlawful Appointments
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules

Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Alternate Range Movements Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Bilingual Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Authorization of Pay Differentials
Out-of-Class Pay Authorization Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Actual Time Worked Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Reduction Policy and Plans Were Not Provided to All Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees
Administrative Hearing and/or Medical Examinations Interpreters Complied with Civil Services Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR policies and Guidelines

Government Operations Agency
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Auditing and Timekeeping Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Leave Reduction Plans Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Department Does Not Maintain a Current Written Nepotism Policy
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate Amount of Time
Disability Advisory Committee Is Not Active
Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural Requirements
Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers
Incorrect Application of Salary Determination Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Application of Alternate Range Criteria
Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not Completed for All Leave Records Reviewed
Department Has Not Implemented a Monthly Internal Audit Process to Verify Timesheets Are Keyed Accurately and Timely
Employee Time and Attendance Records Were Not Retained
Leave Reduction Plans Were Not Provided for All Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Not Provided to All Employees

Office of Inspector General
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Appointments Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Alternate Range Movements Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Bilingual Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Pay Differential Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Out-of-Class Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Auditing and Timekeeping Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Leave Reduction Plans Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisal Policy and Processes Did Not Comply with Civil Service Laws and Regulations and CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
Examinations Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Timely Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All Appointments Reviewed
Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board Rules
Unions Were Not Notified of Personal Services Contracts
Mandated Training Complied with Statutory Requirements
Salary Determinations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Application of Alternate Range Criteria
Hiring Above Minimum Requests Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Bilingual Pay Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Pay Differential Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Incorrect Authorization of Out-of-Class Pay
Errors in Tracking Actual Time Worked
Administrative Time Off Authorizations Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines

Leave Activity and Correction Certification Forms Were Not Completed for All Leave Records Reviewed
Leave Reduction Policy and Plans Were Not Provided to All Employees Whose Leave Balances Exceeded Established Limits
Nepotism Policy Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
715 Transactions Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Workers’ Compensation Process Complied with Civil Service Laws, Board Rules, and/or CalHR Policies and Guidelines
Performance Appraisals Were Not Provided to All Employees

INDEX OF COMPLETED REVIEWS AND SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS COSTS

Department	Compliance Review
Completed	Special Investigation
Completed	
Total Cost	
California Arts Council	Yes	No	$10,296.00	
California Coastal Commission	Yes	No	$63,074.00	
California Conservation Corps	Yes	No	$37,752.00	
California Department of Aging	Yes	No	$59,990.00	
California Department of Child Support Services	Yes	No	$54,912.00	
California Department of Community
Services and Development	Yes	No	$37,752.00	
California Department of Industrial Relations	No	Yes	$96,096.00	
California Department of Pesticide Regulation	Yes	No	$37,752.00	
California Department of Toxic Substances Control	Yes	No	$54,912.00	
California Energy Commission	Yes	No	$54,912.00	
California Gambling Control Commission	Yes	No	$24,091.25	
California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development	Yes	No	$20,592.00	
California Health Facilities Financing Authority	Yes	No	$10,296.00	
California Military Department	Yes	No	$54,912.00	
California Public Employees’ Retirement System	Yes	No	$96,096.00	
California State Controller’s Office	Yes	No	$54,912.00	
California State Lottery Commission	Yes	No	$54,912.00	
California State Teachers’ Retirement System	Yes	No	$54,912.00	
California State Transportation Agency	Yes	No	$20,592.00	
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee	Yes	No	$13,728.00	
California Workforce Development Board	Yes	No	$10,296.00	
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training	Yes	No	$37,752.00	
Commission on State Mandates	Yes	No	$10,296.00	
Department of Business Oversight	Yes	No	$54,912.00	
Department of Conservation	Yes	No	$54,912.00	

Department	Compliance Review
Completed	Special Investigation
Completed	
Total Cost	
Department of Health Care Services	Yes	No	$96,096.00	
Government Operations Agency	Yes	No	$10,296.00	
Office of Environment Health Hazard Assessment	Yes	No	$37,752.00	
Office of Inspector General	Yes	No	$65,986.75	
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development	Yes	No	$37,752.00	
Total		$1,328,542.00	

The costs only include completed reviews from July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, and do not include reviews currently in progress.